(The RMA) and in the MATTER of Notices O

BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY for the East West Link Project

STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF ANDREW PETER MURRAY ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY

Walking and Cycling

Dated: 12th April 2017

Barristers and Solicitors Auckland

Solicitor Acting: Pat Mulligan Email: [email protected] Tel 64 9 358 2555 Fax 64 9 358 2055 PO Box 1433 DX CP24024 Auckland 1140

CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 3 3. CODE OF CONDUCT 3 4. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 3 PART A: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION 4 5. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND MY ROLE 4 PART B: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT 11 6. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 11 7. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 11 8. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION 12 PART C: RESPONSES 32 9. RESPONSE TO AUCKLAND COUNCIL'S 149 ISSUES REPORT/OTHER REPORTS 32 10. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 32 11. SUMMARY 37 12. CONCLUSION 39 ATTACHMENT 1 40 ATTACHMENT 2 42

BF\56832919\1 Page 1

1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

1.1 This statement describes the development of the walking and cycling elements of the Project, the existing network issues and the outcomes and effects of the Project in relation to walking and cycling. It addresses how the Project meets the key Project Objective 2:

To improve safety and accessibility for cycling and walking between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga and Sylvia Park, and accessing Ōtāhuhu East:

1.2 The walking and cycling elements were developed in an iterative way, in coordination with the other elements of the Project design. It considered the Project Objectives, the key desire lines identified in the Urban and Landscape Design Framework (ULDF) and feedback from the public and stakeholders such as Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and Bike Auckland.

1.3 The assessment of the existing facilities identified a number of key issues, including:

(a) Minor network gap on Orpheus Drive where pedestrians and cyclists have to use this lightly trafficked road;

(b) A network gap for cyclists between the cul-de-sac end of Onehunga Mall and to the key destinations of Onehunga Town Centre / train Station, with the very high truck and traffic flows contributing to poor amenity on this route for both cyclists and pedestrians;

(c) The Waikaraka Cycleway ending at Hugo Johnston Drive, without direct connections to key destinations such as Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill and Sylvia Park Town Centre;

(d) No safe crossings of the busy Mt Wellington Highway for the 1.3km section between Panama Road and Sylvia Park Town Centre

(e) Poor and unsafe movements crossing SH1 at Princes Street to access Ōtāhuhu East and no connectivity east of SH1 between Ōtāhuhu East and the northern communities of Panama Road; and

(f) Narrow footpaths on the Panama Road motorway overbridge.

1.4 The Project proposes creating over 25km of new or enhanced walking and cycling facilities, which is a significant addition to the existing network of only 12km of typically

BF\56832919\1 Page 1

lower-standard facilities. This includes an additional 5km of shared path, 2.7km of new cycleway, an additional 2.6km of footpath and 3.1km of new recreational paths.

1.5 Although there are some existing high-quality facilities (such as the Waikaraka cycleway), there are significant gaps in the network, especially for off-road cycling facilities. The Project improves connectivity on the key links in the network, with over 3km of walking and over 5km of cycling gaps in the network being completed.

1.6 The Project would enable cycling trips to be made on off-road facilities for the full 6km journey between Taumanu Reserve and Mt Wellington Highway near the Sylvia Park Town Centre.

1.7 Based on the assessment in Technical Report 01 (TR01) of the AEE, I consider that the Project will significantly improve safety and accessibility for cycling and walking between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga Town Centre and Sylvia Park Town Centre by providing high quality, off-road and continuous links connecting these key destinations. New and enhanced north-south connections will improve connectivity to the Māngere foreshore from the residential communities north of Neilson Street, including at Onehunga Mall and Alfred Street. There will also be significant connectivity and safety improvements for the communities of Ōtāhuhu East, both via the existing route over SH1 at Princes Street, but also with a wholly new access provided east of SH1 to the adjacent community of Panama Road. I consider that these will offer not only significantly improved accessibility for these local communities, but also provide a substantial contribution to the development of the wider walking and cycling network.

1.8 Overall, I therefore consider that the Project will strongly achieve Project Objective 2, namely to improve safety and accessibility for cycling and walking between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga and Sylvia Park, and accessing Ōtāhuhu East.

1.9 I have considered the submissions related to walking and cycling and responded (some submissions were addressed in my Statement 1 on Traffic and Transport). The majority of issues raised relate to the detailed form and design of the facilities, or connections to other routes. I consider that these design issues can be addressed through a detailed design process, in particular with Auckland Transport. I have addressed this in regard to the suggested changes to Conditions requested by Auckland Transport, in my Statement 1. However, I note in this statement my support for the more targeted investigation of methods to further enhance the quality of the walking and cycling connections on Onehunga Mall, as reflected in designation condition DC11(c) in Ms Hopkins’s evidence.

BF\56832919\1 Page 2

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 My full name is Andrew Peter Murray. I have a BE (Hons) (Civil) from the University of Auckland (1990) and am a Member of the Transportation Group of IPENZ and Committee member of NZ Modelling User Group.

2.2 I currently hold the position of Technical Director at Beca Limited (Beca). I have 26 years’ experience in transportation with core experience in traffic engineering, transportation planning and transport modelling. This is the second of the two statements of primary evidence I have prepared:

(a) 1: Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects (except walking/cycling)

(b) 2: Assessment of walking/cycling facilities

2.3 My qualifications, experience and overall role in the Project are described in Statement 1, so not repeated here.

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.

4. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

4.1 The purpose of my evidence is to assess the effects of the proposed walking and cycling components of the Project, as reflected in Technical Report Traffic and Transport Assessment (TR01) of the AEE. I focus on the transport functionality of the proposed walking and cycling network. Ms Hancock also addresses the connectivity of the pedestrian and cycle network from an urban design perspective, with a focus on amenity and the user experience.

4.2 My evidence is structured as follows:

Part A: project description

(a) Project Objectives

(b) Design Process

BF\56832919\1 Page 3

Part B: assessment of effects by sector

(a) Assessment methodology;

(b) An overview of the identified current network issues;

(d) Assessment of effects of the Project.

Part C: responses

(a) Response to section 149G report / other reports;

(b) Response to submissions; and

4.3 The draft Notice of Requirement (NoR) conditions are included in Ms Hopkin’s evidence and I refer to these in my evidence. I also refer to and have relied on primary evidence provided by:

(a) Noel Nancekivell (Design and Constructability);

(b) Lynne Hancock (Urban Design); and

4.4 The assessment of transport effects on the existing walking and cycling infrastructure during construction is described in the evidence of Mr Darren Wu.

PART A: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION

5. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND MY ROLE

Role in Project

5.1 My role has been to assist development of the Project, including the assessment of the walking and cycling effects. This has included:

(a) Attended consultation workshops meetings with Auckland Transport, Bike Auckland, Auckland Council and Panuku Development Auckland in my capacity as a member of the Project design team.

(b) Worked with the Project team in developing the proposed walking and cycling elements, including with the geometric and urban design teams.

BF\56832919\1 Page 4

(d) Identified the mitigation required for the adverse effects of the Project; and

(e) Forecast the potential usage of the new walking and cycling infrastructure.

Objectives of the Project

5.2 The objectives of the Project are described in the NoR and Section 5 of Mr Wickman’s evidence. They are:

(a) To improve travel times and travel reliability between businesses in the Onehunga-Penrose industrial areas and SH1 and SH20;

(b) To improve safety and accessibility for cycling and walking between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga and Sylvia Park, and accessing Ōtāhuhu East; and

5.3 My evidence discusses how the Project achieves Objective 2 above with the other two objectives discussed in my separate statement on Traffic and Transport.

Description of the Project and Design Process

5.4 A detailed description of the Project is included in the AEE and Section 10 of Mr Nancekivell’s evidence. I provide more detail of the proposed Project in Part B of this statement, however the key functional outcomes desired of the Project are to:

(a) Enhance the quality of the already popular north-south movement between the Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga, both through enhanced off-road facilities and reduced traffic flows;

(b) Provide an eastern extension of the Waikaraka Cycleway to connect to Sylvia Park Town Centre;

(c) Provide increased north-south connectivity from the Waikaraka Cycleway into the residential areas north of Neilson Street;

(d) Provide improved access into Ōtāhuhu East, via safer routes over SH1 and Princes Street and a new connection over Ōtāhuhu Creek to link the communities of Panama Road and Princes Street areas;

BF\56832919\1 Page 5

(e) Improve the western link into Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore; and

(f) Facilities that recognise the needs of the different users.

5.5 Cycling facilities have been designed to be generally separated from traffic, where appropriate, with regular and defined crossing facilities (both at-grade and via under or over-bridges), but to recognise the different environments and likely usage in each sector. The design process has included the use of Auckland Transport’s standards, such as the Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP).

5.6 Key desire lines that the Project is seeking to facilitate were identified in the Urban and Landscape Design Framework (ULDF). This is repeated here in Figure 5-1 and can generally be summarised as:

(a) A north-south axis between the Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga

(b) An east-west axis between Taumanu Reserve and Sylvia Park Town Centre, via the Māngere inlet, crossing the north-south axis near the Onehunga Wharf

(c) North-south access to the foreshore section at defined points such as Onehunga Mall, Alfred Street, Captain Springs Road, Hugo Johnston Drive and to Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill at Great South Road.

(d) North-south desire line east of SH1 across Ōtāhuhu Creek.

(e) An east-west crossing of SH1 at Princes Street Ōtāhuhu (not indicated in Figure 5-1)

BF\56832919\1 Page 6

Figure 5-1: Project Walking and Cycling Desire Lines in ULDF

5.7 An important consideration for the cycling facilities was the desire to use the Waikaraka Cycleway as the main east-west corridor in this area, so as to encourage cyclists to avoid the Neilson Street corridor with its high volumes of trucks and large number of turning vehicles.

5.8 The design process also considered connections to other proposed paths such as those of Auckland Transport and the Local Board’s Greenways projects1. This Project implements a key section of those plans, namely the eastern extension of the Waikaraka Cycleway to Great South Road. Connections to other planned potential projects have been considered, including:

(a) Old Māngere Bride replacement;

(b) Auckland Transport’s AMETI project at Sylvia Park; and

5.9 Refinements of the design as part of mitigation has been an iterative process and I have worked closely with the Project Design Team. Feedback from numerous stakeholders including Auckland Transport (Walking and Cycling), Bike Auckland. Auckland Council and Panuku Development Auckland were received during

1 See Figure 4-34, page 76 of TR01.

BF\56832919\1 Page 7

consultation and engagement. There have been changes to the walking and cycling components of the design since the Business Cases2 were developed for the Project to reflect the outcomes of more detailed investigations, stakeholder engagement and safety audits. Changes to the design of the walking and cycling elements in response to engagement and further design development have included:

(a) Creation of a high quality, dedicated cycle facility to encourage cycling;

(b) Separation of cycle and pedestrian movements along the foreshore to reduce safety risks between pedestrians and higher-speed cyclists;

(c) Grade separation of the shared path over Great South Road intersection to reduce delays to pedestrian and cycle movements;

(d) A new cycle route under the SH20 bridge abutment on the north side of Onehunga Harbour Road;

(e) Shifting of the main access route into Onehunga residential areas from Captain Springs Road to Alfred Street; and

(f) A pedestrian crossing of the eastern arm of the EWL at Galway Street (I note that this addition has been confirmed subsequent to Notification of the Project).

5.10 The focus of the work to date is on the location and connectivity of the paths, rather than design details. The current level of design is concept only which is sufficient to confirm a reasonable Project footprint and to assess the effects. I note there will be plenty of opportunity to work with Auckland Transport and others on the detailed design in future phases. Ongoing engagement will continue during any subsequent detailed design and construction phases. I support this continued engagement on design details especially with Auckland Transport (AT) who is responsible for the local roads and the wider walking/cycling network. I have addressed the AT submission related to this process in Statement 1.

5.11 To summarise the quantum of change provided, I have tabulated the linear lengths of walking and cycling facilities. This was done by facility type and across key ‘links’ (I used this term to differentiate from the sectors used elsewhere). I note that there are various methods of measuring these elements so these are for illustrative purposes only. Also, this data doesn’t indicate where existing facilities have been improved.

5.12 Table 1 shows the total lengths by facility type. Key points include:

2 The New Zealand Transport Agency has undertaken a series of Business Cases for the Project which I have discussed in Section 6 of Statement 1. Mr Wickman explains the four stages of the Business Case in Section 4 of his evidence.

BF\56832919\1 Page 8

(a) Walking facilities would increase by 10.7km from 12km to 22.7km

(b) Cycling facilities would increase by 10.8km from 5.1km to almost 16km

Table 1: Linear Length (km) of Walking/Cycling Facilities Facility Type Existing Network Proposed in Project Increase

Commuter Cycleway - 2.7 2.7

Footpath 6.9 9.5 2.6

Recreational Path - 3.1 3.1

Shared Path (3m) 5.1 10.1 5.0

Grand Total 12.0 25.4 13.4

Total for Walking 12.0 22.7 10.7

Total for Cycling 5.1 15.9 10.8

5.13 In Table 2 I indicate the improvement in linear connectivity. This measure is done by individual links in the network and assesses the proportion of that linear length that is connected end-to-end. The links described in Table 2 are shown graphically in Attachment 1. This avoids issues with double-counting where facilities are provided on both sides of the road or of multiple types. This assessment conveys the significant enhancement in connectivity and avoids double-counting of duplicate facilities. The assessment does however ignore improvements in quality such as footpaths on both sides of roads or wider paths.

Table 2: Assessment of Link Connectivity Link # Link Description Length Walking Cycling (metres) Existing Project Existing Project

1 Orpheus Drive: Old Māngere Bridge to 920 52% 100% 52% 100% Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore Reserve

2 Onehunga Mall: Old Māngere Bridge 670 100% 100% 26% 100% junction to Neilson Street

BF\56832919\1 Page 9

Link # Link Description Length Walking Cycling (metres) Existing Project Existing Project

3 Galway Street (EWL to Neilson Street) 520 7% 100% 0% 0%

4 Foreshore: Old Māngere Bridge junction to 3,610 100% 100% 100% 100% Hugo Johnston Drive

5 Alfred Street: Foreshore to Neilson Street 515 100% 100% 0% 100%

6 Captain Springs Road: EWL to Neilson 492 0% 100% 0% 45%3 Street

7 Ports Link: EWL to end 403 0% 100% 0% 0%

8 Anns Creek: Hugo Johnston Drive to Great 840 0% 100% 0% 100% South Road

9 Sylvia Park Road: Great South Road to 1,171 72% 100% 0% 100% Sylvia Park Centre

10 Great South Road: Vestey Drive to near 450 100% 100% 44% 100% Southdown Lane

11 Panama Road (bridge only) 60 100% 100% 0% 100%

12 Ōtāhuhu Creek crossing: Deas Place to 274 0% 100% 0% 100% Mataroa Road

13 Frank Grey Place, Luke Street to existing 400 100% 100% 0% 100% southbound on ramp

14 Princes Street: Frank Grey Place to Albert 300 100% 100% 0% 100% Street

Total metres connected 10,924 7,771 10,924 4,284 9,482

5.14 This shows that in terms of simple linear connectivity (i.e. without considering the quality of the facility), walking connectivity increases by more than 3km and cycling connectivity by over 5km.

3 The shared path provides access to the Waikaraka Cycleway, with cycling movements to areas further north intended to be via Alfred Street

BF\56832919\1 Page 10

PART B: ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

6. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

6.1 The assessment has considered the potential effects of the Project on pedestrians and cyclists and the methodology is set out in Section 2 of TR01. This has been primarily via a qualitative assessment of changes in the type and quality of connections and facilities provided, as indicated in Volume 2: Drawing Set, Drawing Set 3: Road Alignment, as compared to the existing and expected future environment. I have made simple estimates of future potential usage based on comparable projects.

6.2 The assessment included use of both the regular surveys of cyclists undertaken by Auckland Transport, as well as additional surveys and observations.

7. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

7.1 The existing environment is assessed in detail in Section 4.13 of TR01. In general the existing pedestrian and cycle network has some excellent and well used components (like the Waikaraka Cycleway and Old Māngere Bridge) but there are some significant gaps in the wider network, particularly at the eastern end. Some existing connections are of poor quality and cyclists and traffic are not always separated. Additionally, the high levels of vehicle and truck flows, as well as significant congestion on the road network, make for a typically hostile environment for walking and cycling. I describe the existing facilities in each sector below, however a summary of the key features of the existing walking and cycling network is as follows:

(a) A minor network gap on Orpheus Drive where pedestrians and cyclists have to use the road;

(b) A well-used underpass under SH20 between the Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga Mall, as well as a little-used footpath on the north side of Onehunga Harbour Road;

(c) Network gap for cyclists between the cul-de-sac end of Onehunga Mall to the key destinations of Onehunga Town Centre / train station. The very high truck and traffic flows also contribute to poor amenity on this route;

(d) The Waikaraka Cycleway ends at Hugo Johnston Drive and does not extend to the Sylvia Park Town Centre. This represents a significant gap in the network and is likely to explain why the cycleway is predominantly used only as a recreational path from Onehunga.

BF\56832919\1 Page 11

(e) Pedestrians moving between the two Ōtāhuhu communities either side of SH1 using Princes Street have to undertake four uncontrolled crossing movements across the SH1 on and off-ramps, which is not considered to be safe (especially for vulnerable users). There are no facilities for cyclists on Princes Street and the footpaths on the bridge are very narrow; and

(f) Narrow footpaths on Panama Road Motorway Overbridge.

7.2 Key walking and cycling destinations relevant to the Project are identified to be Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore Reserve, Māngere Bridge, Onehunga Wharf, Onehunga Town Centre, Onehunga Train Station, Waikaraka Cycleway4, Waikaraka Park, Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill and Sylvia Park Town Centre.

7.3 A more detailed description of the existing and proposed facilities in each sector follows.

8. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION

8.1 An overview of the proposed walking and cycling network is shown on Figure 7.2 of the TR01 and Attachment 2 of my evidence. In the following sections I describe the existing facilities and the proposed changes with the Project.

Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore to Old Māngere Bridge

Existing:

8.2 The existing facilities in this sector are generally high amenity and include a segregated cycleway between the Manukau Cruising Club and the Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore. The Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore includes high quality recreational cycle and pedestrian routes. The existing facilities in this area are indicated in Figure 8-1.

4 Observations and surveys indicate that people regularly drive to use the Waikaraka Cycleway itself.

BF\56832919\1 Page 12

Figure 8-1: Existing Walking and Cycling Facilities at Onehunga

BF\56832919\1 Page 13

8.3 There is a short network gap5 on Orpheus Drive between the Aotea Sea Scouts Hall and the Manukau Cruising Club as the existing shared path6 only extends to the Aotea Sea Scouts Hall. This is primarily a network gap for pedestrians as they are obliged to walk on the narrow shoulders of Orpheus Drive. Although Orpheus Drive is lightly trafficked I consider it unsafe for pedestrians to walk on the road, especially with the high proportion of recreational users with small children. This network gap is not as significant for cyclists as Orpheus Drive has low flows and typically low vehicle speeds due to its mainly recreational access function.

8.4 There is an existing shared path between the Aotea Sea Scouts Hall and the Old Mangere Bridge, however it is of varying width (typically between 2-3m) and immediately adjacent to the busy and congested Onehunga Harbour Road, which acts as access to the motorway on and off ramps.

Proposed:

8.5 The Project proposes an off-road shared path between Old Māngere Bridge and the Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore as seen on Figure 8-2 of my evidence. A boardwalk is proposed as part of this route due to the constraint of the foreshore edge.

8.6 The shared path will therefore have a positive effect on connectivity and safety by allowing pedestrians (especially) to travel free of the traffic lanes. The shared path will provide a continuous link for pedestrians and cyclists between Old Māngere Bridge and Taumanu-Onehunga Foreshore.

8.7 Onehunga Harbour Road will no longer have a motorway access function, meaning that the improved path will now be beside a very low volume and low speed recreational access road.

8.8 I consider the positive effects west of the Sea Scouts will be relatively modest as the network gap is relatively short and Orpheus Drive is a lightly trafficked recreational route with typically low vehicle speeds. However, there will also be benefits east of the Scouts Hall from the reduced traffic environment and widened shared path.

North/South connection between Māngere Bridge and Onehunga Town Centre

Existing:

8.9 The Old Māngere Bridge shared path is a well-used pedestrian and cycle facility and connects the communities of Māngere Bridge and Onehunga across the Māngere Inlet.

5 Approximately 300m 6 The existing shared path is on the southern side of Onehunga Harbour Road and Orpheus Drive and is narrow in parts.

BF\56832919\1 Page 14

The Old Māngere Bridge portion of the connection is generally level and direct, and the connecting shared paths ensures it is mostly a high quality route and attracts other recreational activities such as fishing. There is a walking and cycling facility attached under the SH20 motorway bridge, however this is less regularly used than the more open route via the Old Māngere Bridge. Counts at the northern end of the Old Māngere Bridge for the month of August 20167 indicated weekday cyclists between 65 and 300 with an average of 191. Saturday counts ranged between 200 and 400 while Sunday was the busiest, ranging between 340 and 620. This demonstrates that although volumes are variable, the route is popular for weekday usage, but that the recreational usage is much more significant.

8.10 The Transport Agency plans to replace Old Māngere Bridge with a new bridge and this is described in Section 7 of Mr Wickman’s evidence. The replacement bridge will provide continued walking and cycling access between Māngere Bridge and Onehunga. The Project is designed to integrate with the Transport Agency's proposal for the new Old Māngere Bridge as discussed in Section 8 of Mr Nancekivell’s evidence. The replacement bridge would have the same connection as the existing, so does not have significant influence on the EWL Project.

7 Data collected by Auckland Transport

BF\56832919\1 Page 15

Figure 8-2: Proposed Cycling and Pedestrian Facilities at Onehunga

BF\56832919\1 Page 16

8.11 Northbound between Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga Town Centre pedestrians and cyclists currently use the facilities shown on Figure 8-1:

(a) A shared path (over bridge) over Onehunga Harbour Road and an underpass under SH20 to reach the cul-de-sac end of Onehunga Mall;

(b) Cyclists are on-road for a short section on the lightly trafficked southern end of Onehunga Mall. Pedestrians use the existing footpaths;

(c) Cyclists continue to be on-road but Onehunga Mall changes to become a high volume (approximately 23,000 vpd) freight and vehicle dominated road to the Neilson Street intersection. Pedestrians use the existing narrow footpaths adjacent to the highly trafficked environment; and

(d) Pedestrian access to the train station is via two separate pedestrian crossing phases (Onehunga Mall and Neilson Street) to reach the eastern side of Onehunga Mall. This is a very busy intersection with high traffic volumes and a strategic motorway access function. The extensive congestion means that road space and traffic signal priorities are focussed on traffic, rather than pedestrian needs.

8.12 Southbound cyclists can use Onehunga Mall and Onehunga Harbour Road to connect back into Waikaraka Cycleway, travel under SH20 if heading towards Taumanu- Onehunga Foreshore or connect back onto Old Māngere Bridge. Pedestrians can use the existing footpath on the northern side of Onehunga Harbour Road.

8.13 Existing pedestrian and cycle access between Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga is via the overbridge over Onehunga Harbour Road and an underpass under SH20 to reach the cul-de-sac end of Onehunga Mall.

8.14 Overall, I consider that the high truck and traffic flows and narrow footpaths on Onehunga Mall make this a low-quality and hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Proposed:

8.15 The proposed infrastructure for this sector is significant and includes re-providing existing connections, providing new connections as well as enhancing the quality of existing facilities. Significantly, it allows relocation of road space and traffic signal priorities due to the removal of substantial volumes of traffic. These facilities are shown in Figure 8-2 and include the following key elements:

BF\56832919\1 Page 17

(a) Replacement of the existing overbridge over Onehunga Harbour Road to also cross over EWL, then connect to the existing SH20 underpass through to the cul-de-sac end of Onehunga Mall;

(b) A new, wide landbridge over the EWL between Onehunga Wharf and Onehunga Harbour Road (outside The Landing), with new local road and walking and cycling connections;

(c) A new shared path between Old Māngere Bridge and the cul-de-sac end of Onehunga Mall under the SH20 bridge abutment, on the northern side of Onehunga Harbour Road;

(d) A new shared path on the western side of Onehunga Mall through to Neilson Street; and

(e) New or reinstated footpaths will also be provided on Onehunga Harbour Road and Onehunga Mall (eastern side), Galway Street and Galway Link Road as seen on Figure 8-2.

8.16 The north/south connection already exists and is well used, however, there will be a significant improvement in the quality of connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists due to the new shared paths between the foreshore / Old Māngere Bridge and Onehunga and the substantially reduced traffic.

8.17 There will also be significantly increased connectivity between the north side of Onehunga Harbour Road (near The Landing) and the Wharf, due to the proposed land bridge over EWL.

8.18 In addition to the improved off-road facilities, there will be a significant improvement in amenity for the pedestrians and cyclists due to substantial decrease in traffic volumes predicted on the adjacent roads specifically Onehunga Mall and Onehunga Harbour Road as well as at the Onehunga Mall / Neilson Street intersection. As an example, with the Project in place, there are predicted to be 19,000 less vehicles per day on Onehunga Mall (south of Neilson Street) – an 84% reduction with only 3,700 vehicles per day predicted with the Project. The lower trafficked environment adjacent to the shared path will be a much more pleasant and positive experience for pedestrians and cyclists providing higher amenity. Onehunga Mall will change priority from freight and motorway traffic to walking, cycling, local access and public transport. Onehunga Harbour Road will also experience a significant 99% reduction in traffic (with a

BF\56832919\1 Page 18

predicated flow of 300 vpd) and will function as a lightly trafficked local road (before any potential development of the Wharf).

Waikaraka Cycleway Sector

Existing:

8.19 The Waikaraka Cycleway is a 2.9km high amenity shared path which runs parallel to the Māngere Inlet (approximately between Old Māngere Bridge and Hugo Johnston Drive)8. It is a popular route for predominantly recreational users. Surveys undertaken in June 2016 near Alfred Street indicated some 250 cyclists a day on a Sunday9 and 55 on a Monday. Surveys further east near Hugo Johnston Drive showed 165 on the Sunday and 48 on the Monday. This suggests that the eastern end has about 1/3rd less recreational cyclists than near Onehunga, but only 11% less commuter cyclists. Repeat surveys in April 201710 showed similar numbers.

8.20 Pedestrian usage is not as high as cyclists with 135 pedestrians using the path on a weekend and 36 pedestrians on a weekday, at the western end. At the eastern end, 37 were recorded on weekend, and 47 on a weekday. The 2017 surveys indicated similar numbers at the western end, but less in the east. Overall, this shows that pedestrian and cyclist use is variable, but clearly much busier on weekends.

8.21 There are five connections to/from the Waikaraka Cycleway and the adjacent local area; at Alfred Street, Waikaraka Cemetery (west), Waikaraka Cemetery (east), Miami Parade and Hugo Johnston Drive11. The Miami Parade connection to the cycleway is heavily overgrown and does not appear to be regularly used.

8.22 There are no footpaths on either side of Captain Springs Road (south of Neilson Street)12. Alfred Street only has a footpath on the western side of the road.

Proposed:

8.23 The proposed high quality walking and cycling facilities are described in detail in TR01 and shown here in Figure 8-3 and Figure 8-4. The main elements are described below:

(a) A bi-directional, off-road cycleway and separate footpath on the southern (inlet) side of EWL13 along the foreshore;

8 Pedestrians and cyclists deviate from the shared path for a short distance of 200m on a quiet section of cemetery road immediately adjacent to the Waikaraka Cemetery before re-joining the shared path. 9 Surveys were undertaken on Sunday 18th June 2016 (7am – 5pm) and Monday 19th June 2016. 10 Surveys were undertake on Sunday 2rd April and Thursday 6th April 2017. 11 As shown in Figure 4.30 of TR01. 12 There are footpaths present on the private road at the end of Captain Springs Road.

BF\56832919\1 Page 19

(b) A recreational path along the coastal edge, comprising various widths and forms14 and taking a more meandering route;

(c) A shared path on the northern (land) side of EWL between, and with connections to, Alfred Street and Captain Springs Road. The access point at Captain Springs Road is a new connection to the foreshore.

(d) A shared path on Alfred Street (eastern side) between EWL and Neilson Street, including a signalised crossing of Neilson Street.15

(e) A shared path on the western side of Captain Springs Road between EWL and the entrance of Waikaraka Park/Onehunga Sports Club. New footpaths on the remainder of Captain Springs Road.

(f) A footpath on the northern side of EWL between Galway Street and Alfred Street and between Captain Springs Road and the new Ports Link road. A new footpath connection to the foreshore from Miami Parade/ Ports Link Road16

(g) Five crossing points of the EWL, to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross safely at Galway Street (signals), Alfred Street (overbridge), Captain Springs Road (signals), Ports Link Road (signals) and Hugo Johnston Drive (underpass);

(h) A shared path on the southern edge of the EWL structure from the edge of the Ports of Auckland land to great South Road;

13 This section is segregated from pedestrians as it is expected to have the highest pedestrian usage and hence a higher risk of conflicts with high-speed cyclists. 14 The path will be a combination of boardwalk and gravel paths. 15 Alfred Street also provides a secondary link into the town centre from EWL with the primary link being via Onehunga Mall. 16 This route is not intended to be a through route and therefore shared paths are not proposed.

BF\56832919\1 Page 20

Figure 8-3: Cycling and Pedestrian Improvements (Waikaraka Cycleway)

BF\56832919\1 Page 21

Figure 8-4: Cycling and Pedestrian Improvements (Waikaraka Cycleway)

BF\56832919\1 Page 22

8.24 The existing paths around the inlet between the Ports of Auckland land and Hugo Johnston Drive will be retained. Given that these are at-grade and remote from the new road, I would expect those paths to be more popular for pedestrians and recreational cyclists than the shared path adjacent to the road on the elevated structure. This means that the shared path on the structure is likely to be mostly commuter cyclists.

8.25 The significantly enhanced connectivity to the east is expected to increase the cycle use in this part of the corridor, and pedestrian usage is also expected to increase. The flat and straight alignment of this foreshore section means that cycle speeds could be high, and hence the cycleway is proposed to be segregated from the adjacent footpath, to reduce the risk of high-speed cycle-pedestrian conflicts.

8.26 Improved connectivity to the foreshore from the northern residential areas is expected by the shared path on Alfred Street (including the signalised crossing of Neilson Street and the overbridge on EWL). This lightly-trafficked route was agreed with Auckland Transport as the preferable north-south route rather than the high-volume Captain Springs Road between EWL and Neilson Street.

8.27 Significantly improved connectivity is proposed with a new connection to the Māngere foreshore at Captain Springs Road, which is currently a private cul-de-sac. This includes footpaths on the full length of Captain Springs road (where there are currently none), and a shared path from the EWL up to the main entrance to Waikaraka Park.

8.28 On the southern (inlet) side of EWL the provision of separate facilities for commuter cyclists and pedestrians, and another separate facility for recreational users, will provide safer movements for the different user groups.

8.29 The Project also provides for improved accessibility to Waikaraka Park via the new shared paths on Captain Springs Road and Alfred Street along with new footpaths on Captain Springs Road where there are currently none.

8.30 The proposed overbridges, underpasses and at grade pedestrian crossings will allow pedestrians to cross EWL safely.

8.31 The existing pedestrian and cycle connections to the Waikaraka Cycleway will be retained except for the Miami Parade connection. Pedestrian access between Miami Parade and the cycleway will instead be provided via the Ports Link. Although cyclists would have this connection removed, I do not consider this to be an adverse effect as it is not highly used, and because it does not align with the proposed desire lines for

BF\56832919\1 Page 23

cycle access which encourage east-west movement along the foreshore route, with north-south movements via Onehunga Mall, Alfred Street, Captain Springs or Hugo Johnston Drive.

8.32 I consider that there are significant connectivity and safety improvements for pedestrian and cyclists in this corridor. The significantly improved access to the east and enhanced north-south connections improve accessibility, while the multiple facility types (including recreational paths, commuter cycle lanes and footpaths) will provide for safer and more efficient travel for both the existing and expected future users. The segregated facilities will especially reduce conflicts between higher-speed cyclists and recreational users (which includes vulnerable users such as children and dogs).

Anns Creek to Sylvia Park Town Centre

Existing:

8.33 The Waikaraka Cycleway terminates at Hugo Johnston Drive and does not connect directly to Sylvia Park Town Centre. Such a link is indicated in Auckland Council’s future Greenways Map, however a link here is difficult to provide because of the severance caused by Anns Creek and the various railway lines and sidings. I consider this to be a significant network gap. The existing route to Sylvia Park Town Centre from the end of the cycleway is indirect (up to 4.1km) with significant sections on or across major roads.

8.34 There are sporadic and poor-quality walking and cycling infrastructure on Great South Road, including for access to Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill Regional Park. There are significant gaps in the footpath network on both sides of Sylvia Park Road. Signalised pedestrian crossing facilities are not provided on any leg of the Sylvia Park Road/Mount Wellington Highway intersection. This means that there is no safe (controlled) facility to cross the busy Mt Wellington Highway in the 1.3km stretch between Panama Road and the first access into the Sylvia Park Centre. I consider that this represents a significant barrier to walking and cycling in this area.

Proposed:

8.35 The proposed high quality walking and cycling facilities are described in detail in TR01 and shown here in Figure 8-5. The main elements include:

BF\56832919\1 Page 24

Figure 8-5: Cycling and Pedestrian Improvements (Anns Creek to Sylvia Park Town Centre)

BF\56832919\1 Page 25

(a) A shared path on the southern side of the viaduct over Anns Creek which will connect with Great South Road (at-grade). A separate structure will take the shared path seamlessly over Great South Road to land on the southern side of Sylvia Park Road. The shared path continues to the Mount Wellington Highway intersection;

(b) A footpath will be provided on Sylvia Park Road underneath the elevated shared path for access to businesses and allow access to the signalised, at- grade crossing of both Great South Road and the EWL;

(c) An enhanced (wider) shared path on the eastern side of Great South Road to connect with the entrance to Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill Regional Park;

(d) A shared path on the western side of the northern and southern arms of Great South Road near the intersection with Sylvia Park Road;

(e) A shared path under SH1 into the Sylvia Park Town Centre; and

(f) Pedestrian crossings of all arms of the intersection of Sylvia Park Road with Great South Road;

(g) Pedestrian crossings of Mt Wellington Highway and Sylvia Park Road at the intersection of these two roads. Currently there are no pedestrian crossing facilities at this intersection.

8.36 The additional facilities will provide a more direct and off-road route between Onehunga and Sylvia Park, being approximately 1.6km shorter than the existing route. The access from business on Sylvia Park Road and the southern section of Mt Wellington Highway will be significantly enhanced via the controlled crossing of Mt Wellington Highway and the direct link under SH1. This will provide safe and direct facilities that avoid the hostile environment through the numerous traffic signals and on and off- ramps along Mt Wellington Highway.

8.37 I consider that there will be a significant improvement in connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists in this sector due to the proposed off-road route between the end of the existing Waikaraka Cycleway at Hugo Johnston Drive and Sylvia Park Town Centre. This will link key destinations of Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill Regional Park and Sylvia Park Town Centre and close this significant network gap. The new link will also mean significantly improved accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists wanting to travel between Māngere Bridge, Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill and Sylvia Park Town Centre.

BF\56832919\1 Page 26

8.38 The elevated portion of the shared path, which crosses over Great South Road, will have considerable benefits for pedestrians and cyclists (east-west movements) as they will not have to use the signalised at-grade crossings at Great South Road;

8.39 Access to Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill will be improved with an enhanced shared path between the intersection of Great South Road / Sylvia Park Road and the entrance to the Regional Park.

8.40 The significant barrier crossing Mt Wellington Highway to access Sylvia Park Town Centre will be addressed with safe crossings and a direct link into the Centre.

8.41 Currently Auckland Transport is developing concept option plans in the Mount Wellington Highway/Sylvia Park area, which integrates the ‘Route 32’ bus and cycling improvements with the proposed AMETI project. Coordination with Auckland Transport should continue on design and programme details and this is reflected in the proposed designation Condition DC12 as set out in Ms Hopkin’s evidence. The provision for the pedestrian and cycle access from East West Link into Sylvia Park Town Centre is reflected in designation Condition DC11(h) in Ms Hopkin’s evidence.

Panama Road Area

Existing:

8.42 Panama Road has no facilities for cyclists and the footpaths on the motorway overbridge are narrow. The handrails and throw-screens exaggerate the feeling of narrowness.

Proposed:

8.43 A shared path will be provided on both sides of Panama Road Bridge, with replacement footpaths on Panama Road and Hillside Road provided as are shown on Figure 8-6.

8.44 These new facilities will improve the connectivity for cyclists and provide a wider path for pedestrians. The improvements will benefit school children walking and cycling to and from Panama Road School. Although this is a relatively short section, it is on one of the only two access roads to this Panama community, so will improve its overall accessibility.

BF\56832919\1 Page 27

Figure 8-6 Cycling and Pedestrian Improvements (Panama Road Area)

Princes Street Interchange Area

Existing:

8.45 At the Princes Street interchange there are no dedicated facilities for cyclists and there are narrow footpaths on Princes Street Bridge. Pedestrians have to undertake four uncontrolled crossing movements across SH1 on and off-ramps which is not considered to be safe. There are no schools in Ōtāhuhu East so this is a main route for school children.

8.46 There is a cycle route running east of SH1 from Highbrook to Ōtāhuhu East, comprising a mix of shared paths and use of local streets. This route does not connect further north than Princes Street.

8.47 The northern parts of Ōtāhuhu East are a cul-de-sac community, with their only access via Frank Grey Place.

Proposed:

8.48 There will be considerable improvements to pedestrian and cyclist safety and access, from the following proposed facilities as shown on Figure 8-7.

BF\56832919\1 Page 28

(a) A reconfigured interchange providing controlled pedestrian crossing points across SH1 Princes Street on and off-ramps and across Princes Street (south);

(b) A shared path on both sides of the widened Princes Street Bridge between Frank Grey Place and Albert Street on the northern side and tying in with the existing footpath outside the shops on the south side;

(c) A shared path on both sides of Frank Grey Place between Luke Street and just before the intersection with Avenue Road) and short length on both sides of Princes Street East;

(d) Signalised crossings across the SH1 on and off ramps on Frank Grey Place.

8.49 Providing a controlled crossing of SH1 Princes Street off-ramps will significantly improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the on and off-ramps as they will not have to undertake uncontrolled crossing movements. The provision of a larger refuge for waiting pedestrians when crossing the SH1 Princes Street on-ramps is also an improvement for the safety of pedestrians.

8.50 The more direct and shorter routes across SH1 between the two communities will improve connectivity particularly for those students accessing Ōtāhuhu Intermediate who live on the eastern side of SH1.

BF\56832919\1 Page 29

Figure 8-7: Cycling and Pedestrian Improvements (Princes Street / Ōtāhuhu Area)

BF\56832919\1 Page 30

New Connection over Ōtāhuhu Creek

8.51 A new bridge will be constructed to the east of SH1 across Ōtāhuhu Creek to provide for traffic diversions during construction works on SH1 and replacement of the existing culverts. The bridge will be retained and will provide a new pedestrian and cycling connection. This new connection will join these two Ōtāhuhu communities on the eastern side of SH1 as seen on Figure 8-7. A shared path connection to the bridge structure will be provided from the connecting roads of Deas Place and Mataroa Road. “Share with care”17 road markings are also proposed between the end of the shared path on Frank Grey Place, along Luke Street to the shared path on Deas Place.

8.52 The proposed new bridge will have a significant and positive transport impact by removing the severance of SH1 and the Ōtāhuhu Creek for the local communities on either side of the Creek. There will also be a significant improvement in connectivity, as it will link the Princes Street and Panama Road communities. The short and direct route across the Creek will be approximately 4km shorter than the existing route.

8.53 There is evidence18 of pedestrians walking along SH1 in this location so this proposed walking and cycling bridge will address this existing safety risk.

8.54 This will also extend the route east of SH1 to the north, connecting from Highbrook through to the northern communities of Panama, Mt Wellington and Sylvia Park.

Interaction with Auckland Transport Projects

8.55 The AMETI project aims to deliver improved walking and cycling facilities to and from Sylvia Park, along with bus improvements. This is discussed in Part C of my evidence and a condition is recommended regarding on-going coordination with Auckland Transport.

8.56 Route 32 is a new high frequency bus route that was implemented on 30th October 2016 between Māngere Town Centre and Sylvia Park via Ōtāhuhu Station, Ōtāhuhu Town Centre. Bus priority and walking and cycling facilities are also proposed in future stages of the Route 32 project. Currently Auckland Transport is developing concept option plans, which integrates the Route 32 walking and cycling improvements with the proposed AMETI project and walking and cycling improvements planned for Ōtāhuhu. Coordination with Auckland Transport should continue on design and programme

17 The “share with care” road markings will alert drivers to slow down along this stretch of route between the two shared paths, however it is noted that Deas Place is a low volume cul-de-sac road. 18 This includes both records of pedestrian activity on the motorway from the Auckland Motorway Alliance and anecdotal feedback from the public.

BF\56832919\1 Page 31

details and this is reflected in the proposed designation conditions (DC11 and DC12) as set out in Ms Hopkin’s evidence.

Assessment of Potential Usage

8.57 TR01 outlines the methodology to calculate the potential usage of the proposed cycling infrastructure. These are only broad estimates to gauge the potential usage and growth. This indicated that 5-years after opening, weekend usage could approach 1,000 cyclists per day, with weekday usage typically in the range 210-460 cyclists a day. The daily estimates are between 450 and 620 per day.

8.58 I acknowledge that these estimates are uncertain and difficult to predict, especially where connectivity is added between communities that does not currently exist. The daily estimates were benchmarked against available data for other sites around Auckland. As stated in TR01 the Waikaraka Cycleway sector could have usage similar to upper Dominion Road or even the section of the Northwestern Cycleway near Te Atatu 5 years after opening. This does not appear unreasonable given the substantial improvement in connectivity across the network this provides. Longer-term forecasts could be expected to be higher if the general trends of rapid growth in cycling across the region continue. Significant growth in commuter travel would not seem feasible without the increased connectivity offered by this Project. The proposed facilities on the foreshore would readily accommodate this level of demand.

PART C: RESPONSES

9. RESPONSE TO AUCKLAND COUNCIL'S 149 ISSUES REPORT/OTHER REPORTS

9.1 There are no walking and cycling issues to address in the Council Section 149 report.

10. RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

10.1 I have considered the submissions related to walking and cycling issues. Where appropriate I respond to the common issues rather than individual submissions. However, I provide direct responses to larger submissions and where unique issues are raised. For conciseness, I have not responded to submissions simply recording support, nor those that make strong opposing statements without technical detail to respond to.

10.2 I note that the submissions by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport include items related to walking and cycling, however I have addressed those submissions in full in Statement 1, rather than split the response across the two statements.

BF\56832919\1 Page 32

Issue 1: Design of Walking/Cycling Facilities

10.3 Numerous submitters raised concerns or made suggestions regarding the form and design details of the walking and cycling facilities. These are well canvassed in the submission by Bike Auckland (126253), so I have addressed this topic via the specific items raised in that submission.

10.4 Firstly, I would note that the walking and cycling facilities have been developed through an iterative process of considering design concepts, constraints and assessment of effects. This has included the use of Auckland Transport’s design standards19 and coordination with Auckland Transport and with Bike Auckland. As stated previously in 5.10 of my evidence the current level of design is concept only which is sufficient to confirm a reasonable Project footprint and to assess the effects. I note there will be plenty of opportunity to work with Auckland Transport on the detailed design in future phases. Ongoing engagement with stakeholders will continue during any subsequent detailed design and construction phases. I support this continued engagement on design details especially with Auckland Transport who are responsible for the local roads and the wider walking/cycling network.

10.5 As noted in regard to the AT submission in my Statement 1, I support the suggested condition requiring such engagement. It is on this basis that I have focussed here on items that could impact the overall footprint, rather than on design detail that would be developed in any case post consenting.

10.6 I now address the specific Key Request items from the Bike Auckland (BA) submission, followed by additional suggestions raised in the submission by the Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Cycling Community (126311).

10.7 BA Key Request 1: Separate cyclists on east-to west shared path between Galway St and Taumanu: I consider that there are opportunities to explore this suggestion during detailed design. I would however note that the key junction between the north-south route via the Old Māngere Bridge to Onehunga and the east-west link between the Foreshore and Taumanu (including the proposed Land Bridge over the EWL) will be a location with multiple crossing movements, that could be better facilitated through shared facilities where cyclists are required to slow down and interact with pedestrians, rather than providing high-speed segregated facilities amongst this complex area. Additionally, I understand from the evidence of Mr Nancekivell (Section 15) that there is

19 Such as Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP).

BF\56832919\1 Page 33

a width constraint beside Orpheus Drive, where wider facilities would not be feasible without extending into the coastal area.

10.8 BA Key Request 2 Onehunga Mall Separated Cycle Lanes. Onehunga Mall is expected to have the highest pedestrian and cyclist volumes, so I do support exploring alternative configurations at the detailed design phase that seek to further enhance the quality of this connection along Onehunga Mall. I note that I do not consider it appropriate to have southbound cyclists on the eastern side of Onehunga Mall having to pass through the heaviest traffic movements at the Galway Link roundabout. Instead, I consider they should be located on the western side of Onehunga Mall in that location if required.

10.9 To reflect this intention, I therefore support the suggested amendment to designation Condition DC11(c) in Ms Hopkin’s evidence, that specifically references seeking a high- quality walking and cycling connection for this route in preparation of the Outline Plan.

10.10 BA Key Request 3: Protection for Mass Rapid Transit. I have addressed this in my statement 1, confirming that the plans for MRT have been allowed for in the EWL designs.

10.11 BA Key Request 4: Improved north-south linkages to the EWL cycleway. This seeks funding for un-specified additional walking and cycling links. I note that the wider network of linkages are the responsibility of Auckland Transport, and I do not consider such additional links are needed to meet the specific Project Objectives. Additionally, I do not consider there are adverse effects on the baseline walking/cycling environment that would require such links as mitigation.

10.12 BA Key Request 5: Panama Road Bridge Width. I consider this opportunity could be explored during detailed design, in liaison with AT who are responsible for the wider cycling network. I note that neither AT’s future cycling network nor the Local Board Greenways plans indicate Panama Road having cycling facilities. (refer to Figure 4-34, page 76 of TR01), so the liaison with AT should consider their plans in this area.

10.13 BA Key Request 6 Require Incorporation of Local Board Greenways Projects. The wider network aspirations of both AT and the Council Local Boards have been considered in the design of the Project. However, it is not the role of this Project to provide all such linkages, and I do not consider them to be required to meet the objectives nor mitigate adverse transportation effects. The design of EWL does not preclude future connections into the Greenways network. For example, the possible Māngere Inlet Greenway path, which is proposed to run north-south on the eastern

BF\56832919\1 Page 34

edge of the Māngere Inlet, west of the rail tracks, could connect into the existing Waikaraka cycleway just west of the Hugo Johnston Drive connection. I indicate this below in Figure 10-1, using Figure 42 of the ULDF:

Figure 10-1 Potential Connection of the Māngere Inlet Greenways Path

10.14 I note that the replacement of the existing SH1 culverts at the Ōtāhuhu Creek with a bridge could provide an opportunity for the Local Board to progress their Greenway projects. Submitter #126654, requests a link from Coppins Road Ōtāhuhu under SH1 to connect to the proposed new path over the Ōtāhuhu Creek. Such a connection would be part of the Greenways project. Mr Nancekivell discusses access under the new SH1 Ōtāhuhu Creek bridge in Section 15 of his evidence.

10.15 BA Key Request 7: Alternative Designs on the Princes Street Bridge. Design details can be considered further during detailed design, however I disagree that segregated cyclist and pedestrian facilities are necessary in this location. The movements in this area are expected to be dominated by school-age pedestrian traffic, rather than long- distance/high-speed cyclists. As such, I consider that shared facilities are an appropriate treatment in this location.

BF\56832919\1 Page 35

10.16 BA Key Request 8a: Traffic calming on Onehunga Mall. I support appropriate calming to provide safe and efficient connections on Onehunga Mall, which should be considered in the detailed design phase with Auckland Transport as the controlling authority for this local road. However, I would note that Onehunga Mall will retain a critical function for local access and bus movements, including any developments aspirations Panuku have for the Onehunga Wharf, which should be considered in the design. As such, I do not support the suggestion by some submitters to make this a pedestrian–only mall.

10.17 BA Key Request 8b and 8c: Use Separated Walking/Cycling Facilities. I consider this is a design detail that could be developed via the suggested process with Auckland Transport. I note that separation between the road and the cycleway is proposed, as indicated in Section 15 of Mr Nancekivell’s evidence.

10.18 BA Key Request 8d: Sufficient Space for Cycle movements at the Overbridges. This is a design detail that could be developed via the suggested process with Auckland Transport. That process would include development of appropriate design guidance and principles, as well as safety audits.

10.19 BA Key Request 8e: Include Cycle Lane on Great South Road: There are significant property, environmental, and infrastructure constraints in this location, however, the Project proposes increased cycleway width via a full shared path on the western side through the intersection. I consider that opportunities for design modifications will be available during detailed design, however, these need to consider both the future plans of AT and the site constraints. I note that recent liaison with AT and the content of Auckland Council submission, suggest that the future north-south cycle network in this area may be better provided beside the Māngere inlet and then via Hugo Johnston Drive, rather than the existing plans suggesting the use of Great South Road. Hence the connectivity to those future projects should continue to be discussed with AT.

10.20 BA Key Request 8f: Clarify Role of Ōtāhuhu Creek Crossing. The proposed additional bridge structure would be initially used to divert traffic during construction of the new bridge on SH1. Post construction, the Project proposes it be used as a walking and cycling link between the Ōtāhuhu east and Panama communities.

10.21 BA Key Request 8h Condition Bike Auckland as a required stakeholder. I do not consider that this is an appropriate condition as there is not an identified effect to be managed. I do support coordination with AT on design details due to their role as owners and operators of the wider walking/cycling network. I note that AT and NZTA already regularly liaise with Bike Auckland, so a specific conditions is not required.

BF\56832919\1 Page 36

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Cycling Community

10.22 This submitter (#126311) raised many similar issues as Bike Auckland, so here I address only their additional design suggestions.

10.23 Request: The Onehunga Port/Wharf land bridge needs to be wider and should facilitate green spaces or a square suitable for recreational walking and cycling activities. The proposal as filed provided for a 25m wide bridge over the trenched part of EWL but made reference to the design providing for this bridge to be up to 70m wide. The bridge provides the connection between Onehunga and the Onehunga Wharf (via Onehunga Harbour Road). In subsequent discussions with key stakeholders, and in particular Auckland Council and Panuku, it was agreed that it should be provided to its full 70m to form a ‘land bridge’, to better support linkages between Onehunga Town Centre, the Landing and the Wharf. I support careful design of this area to take advantage of the substantially reduced traffic flows on Onehunga Harbour Road and Onehunga Mall.

Request: Dedicated protected cycle lanes provided up Captain Springs Road and through the Neilson Street intersection. I do not support this request as during design development, it was agreed with AT that the lightly-trafficked Alfred Street should be the main north-south linkage between the foreshore cycleway and the residential areas of Onehunga. This was in preference to the southern section of Captain Springs Road (south of Neilson Street), which would be a primary access point of industrial and other traffic accessing the EWL. A pedestrian and cycle link on Captain Springs Road between EWL and Neilson Street is not a desire line the Project is facilitating. The intention of the shared path at the very southern end of Captain Springs Road is to provide a new connection into Waikaraka Park sports facilities from the EWL.

11. SUMMARY

11.1 I consider that there are significant improvements which overall contribute to the Project having a highly positive impact on pedestrians and cyclists, including:

(a) Accessibility improvements due to the closure of the network gap between Aotea Sea Scouts Hall and Manukau Cruising Club;

(b) Significantly improved connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists between the Old Māngere Bridge, Onehunga Wharf and the Onehunga Town Centre (and train station). This will be due to the improved off-road facilities and the substantial reduction in traffic flows on the adjacent streets;

BF\56832919\1 Page 37

(c) Significant connectivity improvements through the provision of new high amenity pedestrian and cycling facilities on both sides of EWL. This includes shared paths, recreational paths, commuter cycle lanes and footpaths;

(d) Multiple defined and safe crossing points of the EWL, and connections to the surrounding network at Onehunga Mall, Galway Street, Alfred Street, Captain Springs Road, Ports Link, Hugo Johnston Drive, Great South Road and Mt Wellington Highway;

(e) High amenity facilities with opportunities for the natural surroundings of the Māngere Inlet to be enjoyed by pedestrians and cyclists;

(f) Significant improvement in connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with the proposed route between the end of the existing Waikaraka Cycleway at Hugo Johnston Drive and Sylvia Park Town Centre. This will link key destinations of Mutukāroa-Hamlins Hill Regional Park and Sylvia Park Shopping Centre and close this significant network gap. This includes a high amenity elevated shared path over Great South Road removing the need for pedestrians and cyclists to use the signalised crossings;

(g) New safe pedestrian crossing of Mount Wellington Highway, where currently there are none;

(h) The shared paths on Princes Street and Frank Grey Place and the signalisation of the northbound on/off ramp intersection will significantly improve safety and amenity for pedestrians and cyclists crossing SH1 at Princes Street;

(i) The shared path on both sides of Panama Bridge will improve connectivity for cyclists as there are currently no facilities for these road users. The shared path will be separated from traffic and of appropriate dimensions which is an improvement to the existing width of footpath on the bridge for pedestrians; and

(j) The proposed new bridge to provide for pedestrian and cycling removes the severance of SH1 and the creek and provides highly significant improvements in connectivity as it will link the two isolated communities east of SH1 (being Princes Street and Panama Road communities) with a route that is up to 4km shorter than the existing route.

BF\56832919\1 Page 38

12. CONCLUSION

12.1 Overall, I consider that the Project will significantly improve safety and accessibility for cycling and walking between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga Town Centre and Sylvia Park Town Centre by providing high quality, off-road and continuous links connecting these key destinations. New and enhanced north-south connections will improve connectivity to the Māngere foreshore from the residential community north of Neilson Street, including at Onehunga Mall and Alfred Street. There will also be significant connectivity and safety improvements for the communities of Ōtāhuhu East.

12.2 Overall, I consider that the Project will address the issues identified for walking and cycling and strongly achieve Project Objective 2. The Project will improve safety and accessibility for cycling and walking between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga and Sylvia Park, and accessing Ōtāhuhu East.

Andrew Murray

12th April 2017

BF\56832919\1 Page 39

ATTACHMENT 1

BF\56832919\1 Page 40

Figure A-12-1: Link Description of Walking and Cycling Calculations

BF\56832919\1 Page 41

ATTACHMENT 2

BF\56832919\1 Page 42

Figure A-12-2: Overview of Proposed Walking and Cycling Network

BF\56832919\1 Page 43